What Eskom must do right now

ow that load-shedding schedules — power cuts, to be blunt — are a fact of life, and Eskom is no longer in denial, the handling of the country’s power crisis needs to be taken to another level.

The principles of power cuts need to be established and publicly explained. How much of the burden should business carry? What about the balance of electricity distribution? Can it be assumed that relatively wealthy households can cope better than poor families when there are cuts? What is the recently announced Eskom “war room” actually doing? Should some geographic areas, like Gauteng, be favoured with more electricity because of their economic importance? We need to be convinced that Eskom is applying its mind, not just pulling out plugs in a haphazard way.

Consumers will be much readier to save electricity and not see Eskom as the enemy if they are convinced that the cuts are being applied fairly. When there is a planned switch-off for maintenance, or load-shedding at relatively short notice, we need to be told in detail what is happening. It is perhaps even more important to report afterwards on which areas were affected the day before, and then to compile weekly and monthly summaries so that a pattern emerges. This will go a long way to build trust in Eskom and do away with the resentful “us and them” attitude that prevails at the moment. It would create a sense of participation and enable Eskom to be measured on what it is doing and not doing.

Talking of fairness, paying consumers are rightly outraged that Eskom is owed billions because municipalities cannot collect the tariffs. For political reasons that have their roots in boycotts in the 1980s and 1990s, the defaulters’ lights are not switched off. Government must now make visible efforts to solve this problem, such as directing loadshedding to areas that aren’t paying.

The excuse from Eskom that mistakes in the load-shedding schedule are the province of municipalities is no use. Heads need to be banged together at a political level to close this gap, both in operations and communication — a job for the deputy president, who has been tasked with making Eskom work.

Ancient policies need to change, and where Eskom itself is the obstacle, it needs to be instructed by government to get out of the way. Municipalities can and should consider alternative generation capacity, and fund it off their own balance sheets. Nobody should be obliged to take Eskom power if they don’t want it.

Private companies must be encouraged, both by Eskom and through tax concessions, to sustain themselves where possible and to deliver surplus power to the national grid. Some industrial and agricultural companies are already doing this — are they being sufficiently rewarded?

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power are never going to provide the bulk of our energy needs, but they could make the difference when the network is under strain. They are not fully reliable, but we are second only to Chile when it comes to days of sunshine per year, and we have no shortage of coastal wind. Again, private operators must be given incentives.

Further price increases are inevitable, but here too creativity is needed. The price increase schedule can be extended from three years to, say, 10 years, so that bond holders have clarity about the capacity of Eskom to meet future financial commitments.

Above all, Eskom needs competent leaders and technicians. We hear of retrenchment (often an unimaginative response to budgetary pressure), but little of retaining and hiring the best people. The people of the country are the shareholders in Eskom (not government), and we want to see a few big appointments in project management and operations. Why are former Eskom executives not drawn back, if only as directors? Is there an unwritten rule that white men cannot be appointed to senior positions, or that no foreigners can be recruited?

Admitting the scale of the crisis went against Eskom’s corporate instincts, but it has made that move. Now it needs to behave like a national asset, not a national embarrassment — which means bold, proactive leadership, not timid and defensive mere management.